In the aftermath of Arizona, Dominic Holden is going with animus:
[S]ome are mewling that lawsuits aren’t the way to win the war of public opinion, that we should be fighting bigger battles. One of my friends said we should consider public accommodations to be necessities, like hospital visitation or lunch, but not flowers. But this isn’t about flowers. It’s about the Christian right seeing how far they can push this envelope. The line between trivial product and necessary service is an impossibly broad gray area. But if you believe same-sex marriage is a right, then consider the products and services that society defines as essential to that wedding. It’s not a seat on the bus or a seat at the lunch counter—but it’s just as important.
Dan Savage says he’s somewhere between Holden’s position and mine:
But here’s a suggestion for all the hatey, butt-sore, anti-gay bakers in Arizona: start an organization—The Arizona Association of Homophobic Bakers—and publicly identify yourselves as homophobic
bakers. Put up a website with a list of bakeries that don’t want to do business with LGBT people. Put signs in your windows that clearly state that gay and lesbian customers are not welcome and will be turned away. As Anderson Cooper pointed out earlier this week, gays and lesbians are not covered by existing anti-discrimination law in Arizona. So it’s perfectly legal right now for bakers—and florists and caterers and photographers—to discriminate against LGBT customers. …
The homophobic bakers of Arizona will do no such thing of course. Because hater bakers know that putting “We Don’t Serve Gay People” signs in their windows will not only cost them our business—business they don’t want—but also the business of our straight friends, family members, and neighbors. Business they do want. And they’ll also lose the business of fair-minded straight people who think discrimination is wrong. And they’ll lose the business of straight people who worry about where this kind of selective, hypocritical, faith-rationalized discrimination could ultimately lead.
… like discrimination against the divorced. Meanwhile, now that Arizona is out of the headlines, David Cohen takes stock of equal protection laws around the country:
[T]he numbers are quite staggering.
Twenty-one states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment; 21 prohibit discrimination in public accommodations; 21 prohibit it in housing; 26 in hospital visitation; and only 13 in education. (All stats courtesy of the Human Rights Campaign.) These numbers indicate that there are huge gaps in anti-discrimination laws in this country, especially considering that an even smaller number of states also protect against discrimination based on gender identity.
What’s most amazing about these numbers is that polls show overwhelming support for anti-discrimination laws. To most people, it’s as simple as Gov. Brewer put it on Wednesday: Nondiscrimination is a “core American and Arizona value.” And yet, the law has not yet caught up with public opinion.
The reason is simple: Republican refusal to consider any protections for gay people, and won’t bring ENDA to the floor of the House. They don’t really have an argument, since they’ve long since conceded the core question of whether firing someone merely because they’re gay should be legal. Just listen to Jan Brewer or Mitt Romney. They just know that any positive legislation for gay citizens would be anathema to their base. So they claim (implausibly) that there’s no problem for gays in employment. Which is why their base’s recent loud insistence that they should too be able to actively discriminate on religious grounds is one more excruciating twist of the incoherence. Benen sifts through more public opinion surveyed this week by the Public Religion Research Institute:
[H]ere’s the kicker: “Three-quarters (75%) of Americans incorrectly believe it is currently illegal under federal law to fire or refuse to hire someone because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.” This matters, of course, because three-quarters of the country is wrong. Under federal law, employers can legally fire employees if they’re gay, or even if they think the employees are gay. Some states prohibit this kind of discrimination, but most don’t.
Among those that don’t:
In late January, weeks before Kansas’ and Arizona’s odious anti-gay segregation bills drew fury across the country, the Mississippi state Senate quietly passed its own viciously homophobic “religious liberty” measure to virtually no fanfare. The bill, which is nearly identical to Arizona’s, would have the same effect as its now-notorious counterparts, allowing any private business to turn away gays at the door. But unlike Kansas’ and Arizona’s bills, which drew fierce Democratic opposition, the Mississippi measure passed with unanimous bipartisan support.
Yes, you read that right: Every single voting member of the state Senate, Republican and Democrat, supported a bill that would effectively allow segregation of gay and straight people throughout Mississippi.
But it was mercifully ditched yesterday. The import of what survives is unclear. Meanwhile, it’s worth recalling that this kind of legislation is not just being introduced in the red states:
Legislators in the Hawaii House introduced the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” on Jan. 23. It features the language: “No individual, sole proprietor, or small business shall be required to take any of the following actions if doing so would cause the individual, sole proprietor, or small business to violate their sincerely held religious belief: (1) Provide any facility, good, or service that assists or promotes the solemnization or celebration of any marriage, or provide counseling or other services that facilitate the formation or perpetuation of any marriage; (2) Provide benefits to any spouse of an employee; or (3) Provide housing, lodging, or similar accommodation to any couple.” It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 27.
(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
The Dish 